Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> writes:
> I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
> For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
> troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
> is licence-incompatible with all unedited-GPL code. So the FSF have
> worked to prevent that by using the copyright on their licence text
> and I don't think that's unreasonable.
I can see that preventing license proliferation (especially
closely-similar but incompatible licenses) is a motivation for
discouraging changes to the license text.
> The status quo is quite fine and should be left as it is.
This doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion: that
the license texts which have restrictions on modification are non-free
works by the DFSG, yet are being distributed in Debian against the
\ "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything |
`\ that's even remotely true!" -- Homer, _The Simpsons_ |